Dear Col Rouge,

This discussion is about leadership. Much as I'd like to discuss socialism with you, the 350 word limit won't allow me to do so, plus
I don't want to de-rail this discussion. Besides which, there are very divergent forms of socialism in the modern world and they differ markedly in their degree of centralized control of the economy, and in the liberties their citizens enjoy. But back to the discussion topic of leadership in this country...

Intelligent observers of federal politics like Fairfax's Laura Tingle seem to have sniffed a change in the wind. Tony Abbott's fixation on media stunts (like the ill-fated proposal to hold a carbon tax plebiscite) and his breathtakingly threadbare policy platforms have started to make even enthusiastic Abbott supporters uncomfortable.
Abbott's performance on the ABC's 7.30 Report recently, did not remove any of these doubts. Up against a competent interrogator in Chris Uhlmann, Abbott struggled to articulate anything more than his usual slogans.

In contrast, the PM looked surprisingly perky in her appearance on "Q and A," a few weeks ago.

It will be interesting to
watch what happens as people like Malcolm Turnbull Joe Hockey, and others, begin to speak out and say what they really think and not simply quote the party mantra, as they've done to date. The next election is not until 2013. Australian voters will have plenty of time
to judge things for themselves. As they did at the last election when
the electorate rejected a Gillard Government and an Abbott Government and gave the nation - eventually - a Coalition of Labor, Greens, and Independents

Lexi "This discussion is about leadership."

So you say,

but we both know

Julia Gizzard has tripped and fumbled across the political stage and failed with every policy initiative attempted in the course of her Prime Ministerial Tenure (Like Krudd before her).

She will not be re-elected.

Conversely, we both know Margaret Thatcher was re-elected 3 times as UK Prime Minister, in 1979, 1983 and 1987, becoming the longest continuous serving Prime Minister of UK in 150 years.

- which does tend to suggest

Margaret Thatcher was a "leader" and

whatever she thinks she is, Julia Gizzards is not.

As for "The next election is not until 2013"

and the hole Gizzards is digging is just getting deeper

I wonder what else the socailists will stuff up by then...

the refugees are a recurring sore... which is turning more like septicimia by the day... a condition which can turn fatal

Carbon Tax has already been seen as a coffin nail

I suspect the fact that socialist policies are driving the economy into a deep recession (check out the retail sales results) might be another demonstration of whay the socialists are the party best suited to opposition.

Doubtless the Liberal / National Coalition will be better off without Turnbull but beyond that, Tony Abbott is looking alot healthier than Gizzards...

Gizzards, who before the next election, is likely to succumb to a similar stab in the back which took Krudd out of the Lodge

Hi Col, seeing you're quoting Margaret Thatcher (again) I thought I'd repost this - you must have missed it on the other thread:

“The danger of global warming is as yet unseen, but real enough for us to make changes and sacrifices, so that we do not live at the expense of future generations.

Our ability to come together to stop or limit damage to the world's environment will be perhaps the greatest test of how far we can act as a world community. No-one should under-estimate the imagination that will be required, nor the scientific effort, nor the unprecedented co-operation we shall have to show. We shall need statesmanship of a rare order.

For two centuries, since the Age of the Enlightenment, we assumed that whatever the advance of science, whatever the economic development, whatever the increase in human numbers, the world would go on much the same. That was progress. And that was what we wanted.

Now we know that this is no longer true.

The IPCC report is a remarkable achievement. It is almost as difficult to get a large number of distinguished scientists to agree, as it is to get agreement from a group of politicians. As a scientist who became a politician, I am perhaps particularly qualified to make that observation! I know both worlds.

Of course, much more research is needed. We don't yet know all the answers. Some major uncertainties and doubts remain. No-one can yet say with (absolute) certainty that it is human activities which have caused the apparent increase in global average temperatures. The IPCC report is very careful on this point.”

cont'd

(Margaret Thatcher cont’d)

“But the need for more research should not be an excuse for delaying much needed action now. There is already a clear case for precautionary action at an international level. The IPCC tells us that we can't repair the effects of past behaviour on our atmosphere as quickly and as easily as we might cleanse a stream or river. It will take, for example, until the second half of the next century, until the old age of my grandson, to repair the damage to the ozone layer above the Antarctic. And some of the gases we are adding to the global heat trap will endure in the Earth's atmosphere for just as long.

The IPCC tells us that, on present trends, the earth will warm up faster than at any time since the last ice age. Weather patterns could change so that what is now wet would become dry, and what is now dry would become wet. Rising seas could threaten the livelihood of that substantial part of the world's population which lives on or near coasts. The character and behaviour of plants would change, some for the better, some for worse. Some species of animals and plants would migrate to different zones or disappear for ever. Forests would die or move. And deserts would advance as green fields retreated.

And our uncertainties about climate change are not all in one direction. The IPCC report is very honest about the margins of error. Climate change may be less than predicted. But equally it may occur more quickly than the present computer models suggest. Should this happen it would be doubly disastrous were we to shirk the challenge now. I see the adoption of these policies as a sort of premium on insurance against fire, flood or other disaster. It may be cheaper or more cost-effective to take action now than to wait and find we have to pay much more later.

To accomplish these tasks, we must not waste time and energy disputing the IPCC's report or debating the right machinery for making progress."

Sounds like his MA was in Gender Studies...

Dear Col Rouge,

Margaret Thatcher like our PM - encountered many problems during her terms in office. That's part and parcel of politics. Thatcher's business strategies hit business, especially the manufacturing sector, unemployment increased - more than doubling the one million unemployed under the previous Labor Government. Increased taxes in the middle of a recession didn't help, there were riots and over two million manufacturing jobs were lost in the 1979-81 recession. Finally she lost the support within her own party and was ousted -
making our current PM's leadership problems seem quite small by comparison.

Whether Julia Gillard will win the next election remains
to be seen. As I stated previously 2013 is quite a way off - and in
politics things can change in a flash. I don't share your pessimism
about our PM - because I prefer genuine policies to the rhetoric -
which is all that the Opposition currently has to offer. Of course
this also could change if the Opposition changed their leadership to someone more believable, who had genuine policies to offer - and not
merely a "vision," that they're unable to articulate more fully.
Interesting times ahead for us all.